On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > On 10/3/18 9:53 PM, Christopher wrote: > > I'm still very confused about how to do modular packaging in Fedora. I > > don't know: > > > > 1. How do I create a module for a new Fedora package? > > 2. How do I create a module for my existing non-modular Fedora package? > > 3. How do I declare BuildRequires on my build dependencies from another module? > > 4. How do I declare Requires on my runtime dependencies from another module? > > 5. How do I know what modules are available? > > 6. How do I figure out which packages are in a particular module? > > 7. How do I find out what module a particular package is in? > > The documentation noted elsewhere in this thread is pretty handy; I've read > through it a couple of times now and really appreciate the work that has gone > into it -- thank you. I do have some suggestions: > > -- I'm going to be a little cranky and say the use of "ursine" is very > confusing to me; it's a cute pun, but we have actual bears -- who are > intensely ursine, as it were -- that live nearby so I constantly have > to remind myself of context and translate since proper use of that word > has been familiar to me for many years. This could just be me being an > old codger, however, and I freely admit that :). sadbearissad.jpeg You should know we also have this service named Ursa Major... > -- Could we put the answers to the questions above into the FAQ? Good idea. > -- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful list: > I have a package where upstream releases about once a month, and each > new release must by definition be backwards compatible (acpica-tools, > specifically). I can think of no scenario where a module provides value > to me or end-users; in fact, using anything other than the most recent > causes problems. Do I have to create and maintain a module for this > package anyway? Or are the defaults robust enough that a package can > remain a package without touching modularity at all? The answer to this > is completely unclear to me -- what I've read seems to imply that I must > create a module definition regardless. First of all, you don't have to create and maintain a module. You can continue packaging this like you're used to. But if you decide to embrace modularity, there's nothing wrong with providing a single stream with just one package. You could call it the "latest", or, as some people prefer, "stable" (uh). That way you could benefit from some of the build automation and maintain just one SPEC file for all releases, at least. I see there are packages that depend on yours. At runtime this isn't a real problem as long as your module is enabled by default; however, moving your package to modules only would make it unavailable to non-modular content in the buildroot (until the above-mentioned Ursa Major is a thing in Fedora). Module defaults only select default module streams and default installation profiles (similar to package groups) for each. If you don't package your software as a module, you don't have to care about this at all. P
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
